Re: [PATCH 0/1] Update imap-send.c, fix incompatibilities with OpenSSL 1.1.x

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> I will change GitGitGadget to no longer Cc: you automatically.

Thanks.

> Please register my suspicion that this will make GitGitGadget a lot less
> useful: the stated mission of GitGitGadget is to make contributing patches
> to the Git project _easier_ so that the contributor can focus on the
> changes they want to make, rather than on the rather involved process.

I am not sure where that "a lot" comes from.  FWIW I do not expect
my response rate to change at all [*1*], but perhaps you have
something else, perhaps effect on reviewers other than me, in mind?

In any case, a large part of focusing on changes they want to make
is to ask for help from the right people who know the part of the
system they want to touch, and that is ...

>> Besides, when they send out patches they would also add area experts and
>> those who participated in the review of the earlier round to Cc: so GGG
>> needs to have a mechanism to allow the end user to do so.
>
> So GitGitGadget should now also learn to determine who the current area
> experts are???

... done by CC'ing the right folks, right?

Whether they run "shortlog --since=18.months $pathspec" locally to
find them, or GGG does so for them before turning the patch into a
piece of e-mail and offers "perhaps some of these people can help
you?", after the contributor decides from whom to ask help, there
would be some way for the contributor to tell GGG "ok I'll ask this
person to help by placing the addresss on the CC", no?  That is what
I meant by the mention of CC: in the part of my response you quoted.

> I must have misread your request.

No, it wasn't even a request (unless GGG does not offer any way to
say "I want this to be CC'ed to these folks", that is).  It was
merely "the contributor must have a way to choose to (or not to) cc
me (or anybody), I presume".

The request part was "let them do so themselves, instead of always
cc'ing me, because the latter does not add any bit of useful
information."

After all, software development is a human interaction process.  I
wouldn't mind if the automated CC is done to address some 'bot
(e.g. patch tracker) at all, but it simply is rude to treat other
people as a convenient review bot and it is even more so to do so
blindly and automatically, which is what automated CC added by GGG
is.  At least, when the contributor chooses to ask a reviewer X,
even if the choice were wreong and the patch were in an area the
reviewer X were not familiar with at all, it means something that
the contributor decided to ask for help from X by CC'ing.


[Footnote]

*1* I do not read patch e-mails out of my mbox and instead read via
the nntp interface to lore or public-inbox archive.  The list of
messages presented to me to choose which ones to read and respond to
would only show me who the author is and what the title is, so "is
it CC'ed to me?" does not affect my response rate at all.